Apple has huge teams, just like every other company. Try and work there first. Apple is a huge corporate machine with a slightly less than average moronic baboon at the top who uses his power to influence design decisions, nothing more.
Yeah, give all the keys into single hands. Now *that's* a good idea.
Unfortunately, letting people decide whom they do and do not trust is also a non-starter. Or it's a good, optional measure, but it cannot be a default step.
I personally just remove all governments. In reality verisign and thawte issued all certificates I care about. Why I'd need any others, I do not know, but still there are scores of CA's in my browsers.
How about we simply remove all non-free governments ? One more reason for the progressives' favorite city to stop practicing slavery. Every year, more "progressive" policies look positively medieval (sorry but after reading how it's "racist" to expect Libya to NOT shoot it's own citizens randomly with sharpshooters, or even demand such a state step down from chairing the human rights council... I think I'm entitled to some frustration)
You know, if you're interested in the origins and influence of C#... you might want to check out it's (main) inventor : Anders Hejlsberg.
Interview on the origin of C# (the short version : Turbo Pascal => Borland Pascal => Delphi (Object pascal). If you've used these different languages, this is beyond obvious : C# is a more concise version of Delphi's Object Pascal)
Frankly, more people should try C#, it's a much more... complete... language than java when it comes to language features. It's got all the things java misses, from function references, delegates (which are basically function pointers to class member functions, dear God I can't tell you how much java needs these), full generics (as opposed to type-erasure generics), properties (full getter/setter functionality without the pain), a full VM... This means that any java program is trivially translated to C#, and can easily be improved from there. The reverse... oh dear God you don't want to try converting a non-trivial C# program to java.
But as libraries go, C# is a disaster... Microsoft really should start over from scratch and build a big coherent library (imnsho).
And of course, the things they both do very, very, very well : tool support. While java's (whether you're using eclipse or netbeans or even intellij) is a bit clunky, it's at least there : refactorings, code completion,... C# has this too, even better than eclipse in my opinion, both on linux and on windows. But, even if C# edges out Java in this regard, both are very usable (as opposed to, say, scala's tool support. Want to learn functional programming ? F# is seriously more usable just because the tools are better)
What's wrong with type-erasure generics ? This would seem an obvious feature for a map class, if an instance doesn't exist yet, create it using the default constructor :
class Map<K, T> {
public T get(K key) {
if (contains(key)) return _get(key) else return new T();
} }
Can't do it in java... at all... never... Ever wished it would just work like that ? I know I did on many occasions.
Of course one of the better features of java is it's simplicity. It's brain-dead simple, in a way that Visual Basic is, but cleaner. Idiots can easily learn java programming, and fully mastering the language doesn't take all that much more.
Personally I wish google would fork java. Build a JVM (or just a Java++ compiler), and add a lot of features. Decent generics. Function pointers (including, *please* delegates). Properties. Tuples. But keep it some sort of compromise. More extensive than java, not quite as ridiculously complex as scala. Please : no stomping functional bits through everyone's throat, just a real extension to java.
Euhm... have you ever seen a human walk right after birth ?
Humans *learn* to walk. In about 2 years.
Birds *lean* to fly. In a few seconds. Their mother carries them to about 100 meters height, and drops them (actual method varies). The first landing generally isn't the softest one...
(Well that's not actually true... "most" birds learn to fly, at best)
The bankers simply "helped" too many Americans spend massive amounts of borrowed money they probably couldn't pay back.
What broke the back of the economy was nothing like the banker's salary, or wall street profits... it was that millions of Americans stopped paying back loans. If Americans simply had never made those loans that they'd never pay back (any intrest-only loan, for example, but that's far from all. Also loaning money to invest in stocks ? That's beyond insane). I mean it isn't rocket science that this was going to fail.
Wall street may have handed many people the opportunity to sell their soul, but it's still people who signed in blood, you know.
There's also an OS kernel written in Java, that doesn't mean it's a good idea or an area where Java excels. You use the runtime argument yet mention boost... in this context libC and libstdc++ are runtimes, or see how far you get without them.
The big difference between C++ libraries and other languages libraries is just that they work without runtime.
And btw : there are *no* java operating systems. At least not the java you know. There are "compiled subset of java" kernels, which is not the same thing at all.
And isn't it ? Sure, it suffers from feature bloat - to say the least. And it suffers from a lack of a coherent structure of libraries and tools - it's nothing like java. But if you want to combine high-level programming with access to low-level features. There are C++ operating system kernels that actually use the boost and/or standard libraries. You could even make the claim that a C++ program, like a C program *is* a kernel, in the sense that it can start meaningfully on bare metal (this requires 2 things for a language : being compiled, and no "runtime" that needs to be started and has all sorts of weird startup dependencies). This means it works with C (but only if you are extremely careful) and C++ (again, you can make a few stupid mistakes, but it can work)
Well, I'll have to admit it requires a somewhat flexible interpretation of what a reactor is. But anything containing both Uranium and a moderator medium (such as water) is technically a nuclear reactor.
So the very early nuclear reactors were water + cadmium + uranium + a source of neutrons. Depending on the quantities of the various elements a small injection of neutron-producing elements would case a sustained temperature rise in the water that slowly dissipated. They never reached critical mass, but that is not necessary to illustrate the basic principle in experiments. There were many such "reactors", long before CP-1, all in Belgium (which had the -at that time- only source of nuclear fuel), and Germany (which, up until a certain point, had research cooperation with Belgium. Later Nazi Germany would find a second fuel source, Joachimsthal). One of the Nazi researchers was Jewish, became a refugee, and continued her research into uranium fission from Sweden, but outside of any academic institution there.
And the fact that there is NOT A SINGLE case of those clouds leading to any medical complaint outside of the immediate surroundings of the plant was ever observed ?
Just for accuracy, it's now more than 30 years after Chernobyl. Not one single case. Not one. I mean you would expect one kid to have been particularly unlucky, drinking just the wrong milk where the wind concentrated the wrong cloud... but no. Not a single
(There there also was uranium and plutonium contamination, combined with the fact that the socialists of the soviet union did not see fit to inform their citizins until it was *far* too late (we're talking weeks), nor did the socialists see fit to inform the workers they sent straight into high-level radiation of what exactly was happening (most didn't even know it was a nuclear reactor, much less that it was releasing thousands-of-degrees hot radioactive gases, containing *tons* of neutron-active isotopes. Go near those, and you're dead. Even then, very few actually died). The Japanese government has been, if anything, much too fast with evacuations, and much more careful with worker's lives than even Western countries have historically been)
(and that's ignoring the fact that the first nuclear reactor was a bathtub somewhere in Belgium which, obviously, was somewhat less-than-safe. The guy actually washed himself in it afterwards. Before you ask, he survived perfectly well. Other idiocies like telling people to wash their hands in the primary cooling water of a nuclear reactor also happened in the US. Again, very little ill effects were observed. You should read Richard Feynman's book for a good laugh.)
I wonder how this squares with the GPL. I mean, the GPL clearly specifies Redhat has to release the source 1) in machine-readable form 2) "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."
It seems to me it would certainly be a reasonable demand to state the second implies "the source" is the internal Redhat git reposity... That certainly is redhat's preferred way of modifying it.
Yeah they conveniently forget that this was never the problem at Chernobyl. Both Iodine and Cesium are only dangerous if you ingest significant quantities of them. Additionally they have halflives measured in hours... Meaning these clouds are completely harmless after half a day passes.
The problem at Chernobyl was release of Uranium and Plutonium in clouds, which then spread around the site, and irradiated everything. They will keep irradiating everything for eons. Soviets managed to vaporize about 3.5% of the reactor fuel (and Uranium does NOT vaporize easily, we're talking thousands of degrees). And made it so freaking hot it could stay afloat for minutes.
Does it really need to be said that the Japanese lost control of exactly 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000% of their nuclear fuel. Wanna bet the author of this story is a "green scientist" ?
The thing is, you need to put things in perspective. Even with the radioactive clouds released, background radiation levels at Fukushima, just outside the reactor building are lower than the natural level of radiation in Ramsar, in Iran (which has a particularly high natural level, it has nothing to do with whatever is currently happening there, it's probably been that way for longer than humans exist). Spending a year close to Fukushima itself will have ZERO observable health effects.
Get some perspective (see left upper corner for the increase in background radiation)
I guess we're seeing populist politicians implement their usual strategy : lie. Sorry,... "Fake but accurate" is the term, right ?
Yeah too bad it all pales compared to what MSNBC is doing to the fukushima "disaster". Man... talk about "politics first, facts be damned !" reporting. I mean, Fox on fukushima is the most sane treatment of it in all of the US, with a huge margin.
Now I'm sure that all of "liberal" America would be very glad indeed if -please- a few thousand more Japanese would die from uranium poisoning. *Pretty please*. Or, at least, that's the impression you get from just about every news outlet in the US.
I *love* the way you worded that. You know, when Marx's manifesto clearly states that all dissidents are to be violently silenced. But of course, technically, he doesn't specify the exact method. So the "correct" answer to your question is
"there is no method specified for suppressing dissidents" with the additional remark, of course "it only stated that they absolutely need to be suppressed violently - because no other method will work"
Technically the text doesn't even mention dissidents. But everyone who doesn't agree with the exact ideology is considered to be either "bourgoisie" or "deluded by the bourgoisie", both groups are to be violently eliminated or controlled by what amounts to terror.
As I said, VERY nicely worded, your claiming that Marxism does not imply killing dissidents.
Ah the irony here will be the dozens of slashdotters who claim that this has nothing to do with socialism, or communism (in China the state does not even allow one to make the difference).
Let's do that... and look to North Korea and China if we're not entirely clear on some details, they do this. So do nations like Venezuela, Libya or Iran (they just have a slightly different view of what "basic rights" are). I know it's a cliche, but can you answer this guy's question ?.
And I've worked for 2 research institutions that only produce patents and consultancy. And prototypes, if you could even call them that. More like "technology demos", demonstrating some principle works, but usually far from usable (like a phone with a much more efficient antenna, but not including an actual battery). Consultancy in actual product design that is.
For a *LOT* of industries (including cell phone design) this way of working is quite common. Without patents it wouldn't work.
This allows for the companies to be much smaller : a handset designer (/chip designer/robot designer/...) does not need to keep a lot of research staff on hand, and can thus be a much smaller company. And the companies employing the actual research staff have a steady source of income allowing them to exist in the first place.
Yes, patent trolls exist. That does not mean they're the majority of the industry, or indeed that there are more than 2 or 3 of them at all. Imho we would do well to improve the patent system, excluding patent trolls, NOT affecting actual research and design companies.
You must realize that microsoft can just undercut all of them, if it could simply steal their designs. Given 10 billion dollars, all the hard work done by HTC, or apple free to copy without repricussions.
It is generally assumed that for any handset, for example, 30-40% of the price is research and development (and for the components making that 60%, it is at least 20%). What if microsoft brought out an android knockoff with office connectivity, all the specs of the iPhone 4, and for $300.
How long would something like HTC hold out if it could only produce handsets that have double the price of the competition for similar specs ? Do tell.
How do you even know the situation will improve with your changes (no patents/copyright/trademark...) in place ?
Because frankly, if you don't have either actual, real data (experiments of this kind are plentiful, especially historically speaking. They seem to clearly indicate that without patents, big companies would have a much stronger hold on everything. Without patent/copyright/trademark protection, availability of capital is the only thing that matters, the little guy always loses, because any big company would just undercut them through superior investment). Without a decent, logical argument with actual hard data indicating the situation has changed. I would question who is intelligent and who is a moron... And please don't use any arguments that boil down to "everyone knows this, how dare you doubt it !", because, again, it would simply prove who the moron is.
It seems to me rather obvious that companies like apple/microsoft/google/... would *love* all these protections dropped. After all, they can rely perfectly well on technological measures (microsoft would simply become a lot more draconian, controlling hardware and software, like apple). But small companies and/or small developers wouldn't be able to do that. Not now, not ever. And they wouldn't have to pay anyone else for their work either. Microsoft could instantly build a catalog of applications that far outstrips anything apple has got, and much higher quality. And they could sell delivery of these applications, without having to pay the authors... They would do very well indeed, and everyone else would be thoroughly fucked.
Even with just patent protection dropped, the apples and googles of this world easily have the resources needed for reverse engineering large pieces of software. No small software company would be able to keep them out. The reverse, through shear manpower, would not be true at all. The end result being that large companies would write superior software, and would be the only ones able to make a profit out of them.
Btw : feel free to attack me personally, of course, but I really don't know about this issue. Sure copyright and patent nullification sounds nice, but so does free looting... In my humble opinion your problem probably can't be solved because it's based on a lie. 99% sure. But please, change my mind about this.
First, the "genocide" links don't actually talk about genocide. Two discuss alleged rape by UN peacekeepers, which has already been acknowledged as a problem by the UN, which primarily is the result of countries themselves picking which soldiers serve the UN missions. The Democratic Republic of Congo wants to torment its own people, so it sends its worst soldiers to the UN-controlled areas. That's hardly the result of any incompetence within the UN.
First, the links DO talk about soldiers firing into crowds, killing off entire villages,...
But my main point is simple : The chain of command is responsible for the actions of the soldiers - obviously. Why does the UN get a free pass from all warcrimes precedents from you (ie. any soldier not directly AWOL, any action comitted by said soldier - even if it's a breach of discipline - is the fault of the chain of command). Nobody claims with a straight face that, Aushwitz was the result of individual soldier's actions, even though there never were direct orders for most (almost all, in fact) atrocities. Yet in the case of the UN, you consider them innocent for exactly this reason.
I might -perhaps- be convinced that there is shared responsability. Like 50% Morocco - 50% UN (and 50% nepal - 50% un, and 50% france 50% UN, and so on). But the UN obviously doesn't get a free pass on controlling their own soldiers.
Absolutely! Before the UN or anybody else intervenes, there should be some clear sign that Absolutely!
Given that the UN has publicly comitted moregenocidesthan any other organization in history, I'd advocate violently keeping UN bastards out of everything.
Also, it's the same organization as the "League of nations". It's not often said exactly which organization put Germany in such a position that almost the entire population supported Hitler, but that organization would be the League of nations. Also the League of nations was the organization caused Poland's military to demobilize DURING Hitler's attack, "to allow for peace".
These organizations do not have anything at heart except the delusions of the politicians leading them (first amongst those delusions : that any UN politician, even low-level, should have a wage that Goldman Sach's CEO would be ashamed of)
People should be defended from UN intervention. Because, frankly, if the Libyans knew what they're getting into, they'd put Qadhafi back and give him a raise. Voluntarily. Because it's a lot better than the alternative.
Let's just review :
IAEA - Because pakistan doesn't yet have hydrogen bombs. Oh and pakistan won't help Iran (the one smart decision in a forest of lunatic, delusional decisions that border on warcrimes), so someone else will have to give them the bomb. IMF - Because the UN does not yet control the money of every state UNRWA - Because, let's face it, palestinians might finish what hitler started, wouldn't that be great UNICEF - Giving money to dictators, but ONLY if they torture children WIPO - You thought the DMCA was bad ? Enter this in google UNAIDS - because blacks, frankly, deserve to die (and because agents of this agency themselves are the source of the disease in several provinces) UN security council - Securing your oil supply -and our politician's superiority feelings- through human rights violations, rape, and genocide. Worldwide UNESCO - Talibanizing your cultural heritage (you'd think an organization like would actually have restored or maintained even a single monument, right ?) ILO - Ensuring adequate supplies of young girls to clean politician's houses at a wage low enough to ensure they're open to making something on the side (I know an ILO politician. Sadly. He likes to have a young girl as a cleaning lady, one that's illegal in the country, and yells at her publicly. So does his wife. To the point that his family defends the cleaner physically from him. He's working on the "child labour" issue, now for 20 years). He claims this is nothing strange. He may be right. -oh and- UN inspections didn't find ANY chemical weapons. Only dead bodies killed with sarin gas. That *obviously* means Iraq never had any chemical weapons. Too bad Saddam can't teach us how to fire non-existent weapons at our enemies. Let's face it, we could halve our military budget with that trick...
People should be protected from the atrocity that is the UN. Why anyone even associates with these assholes is beyond me.
You don't seem to get the obvious. The purpose of most political parties is not to solve problems, it is to create them. But once one lets go of realism, like the greens have done so long ago, there are 2 types of policy one might pursue :
a) you can try to genuinly solve problems with effective solutions But best hope you never actually solve problems, or else hope that there always will be new problems. Working yourself into these new problems is also a big job, and you'll never work with the same people for long.
b) try to solve imagined problems with well-sounding but counterproductive "solutions" Now you have a single problem that you can focus on your entire career. The problem will grow, of course, every time you book the slightest little bit of success, and as a result the need for solutions will become ever greater. And you can always point to your own long experience in "getting policy passed" in relation to the problem.
Now, given that you're a leftist politician, not all that young, and you couldn't care less about technology. Only power is of intrest (otherwise you shouldn't -and wouldn't- be a politician). Which one do you choose ?
Perhaps this applies somewhat less to "entrenched" political parties. The ones who know they'll have power, regardless of actual problems. But the younger a political party, the more it depends on creating problems for everyone else.
Can you be sure a nuclear plant will always be operated safely? What if a bunch of incompetent. thieving, corrupt cronies are put in charge?
And if that happens to a coal plant, they could produce co clouds and let them float freely. Anyone near such a cloud will die in minutes, and they won't dissipate anywhere near as fast as these radiation clouds. The same could be done by an engineer with any fossil fuel plant.
And if that happens to an oil plant, can you say "oil tsunami" ? Just pump the whole oil supply into the sea or a lake or just into the street.
And if that happens to a gas plant, have you ever seen a big natural gas explosion ? Or they could pretty much set anything, even big things, alight.
And if that happens to...
Sorry to go with a cliche, but "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Your security measures should be directed against the terrorists, not against their victims (ie. power plants, airplanes, and general the people using and living near them). And frankly, we all know how one could eliminate 99+% of all terrorism. It's just not very PC.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple has huge teams, just like every other company. Try and work there first. Apple is a huge corporate machine with a slightly less than average moronic baboon at the top who uses his power to influence design decisions, nothing more.
Yeah, give all the keys into single hands. Now *that's* a good idea.
Unfortunately, letting people decide whom they do and do not trust is also a non-starter. Or it's a good, optional measure, but it cannot be a default step.
I personally just remove all governments. In reality verisign and thawte issued all certificates I care about. Why I'd need any others, I do not know, but still there are scores of CA's in my browsers.
How about we simply remove all non-free governments ? One more reason for the progressives' favorite city to stop practicing slavery. Every year, more "progressive" policies look positively medieval (sorry but after reading how it's "racist" to expect Libya to NOT shoot it's own citizens randomly with sharpshooters, or even demand such a state step down from chairing the human rights council ... I think I'm entitled to some frustration)
You know, if you're interested in the origins and influence of C# ... you might want to check out it's (main) inventor : Anders Hejlsberg.
Interview on the origin of C# (the short version : Turbo Pascal => Borland Pascal => Delphi (Object pascal). If you've used these different languages, this is beyond obvious : C# is a more concise version of Delphi's Object Pascal)
Frankly, more people should try C#, it's a much more ... complete ... language than java when it comes to language features. It's got all the things java misses, from function references, delegates (which are basically function pointers to class member functions, dear God I can't tell you how much java needs these), full generics (as opposed to type-erasure generics), properties (full getter/setter functionality without the pain), a full VM ... This means that any java program is trivially translated to C#, and can easily be improved from there. The reverse ... oh dear God you don't want to try converting a non-trivial C# program to java.
But as libraries go, C# is a disaster ... Microsoft really should start over from scratch and build a big coherent library (imnsho).
And of course, the things they both do very, very, very well : tool support. While java's (whether you're using eclipse or netbeans or even intellij) is a bit clunky, it's at least there : refactorings, code completion, ... C# has this too, even better than eclipse in my opinion, both on linux and on windows. But, even if C# edges out Java in this regard, both are very usable (as opposed to, say, scala's tool support. Want to learn functional programming ? F# is seriously more usable just because the tools are better)
What's wrong with type-erasure generics ? This would seem an obvious feature for a map class, if an instance doesn't exist yet, create it using the default constructor :
class Map<K, T> {
public T get(K key) {
if (contains(key)) return _get(key) else return new T();
}
}
Can't do it in java ... at all ... never ... Ever wished it would just work like that ? I know I did on many occasions.
Of course one of the better features of java is it's simplicity. It's brain-dead simple, in a way that Visual Basic is, but cleaner. Idiots can easily learn java programming, and fully mastering the language doesn't take all that much more.
Personally I wish google would fork java. Build a JVM (or just a Java++ compiler), and add a lot of features. Decent generics. Function pointers (including, *please* delegates). Properties. Tuples. But keep it some sort of compromise. More extensive than java, not quite as ridiculously complex as scala. Please : no stomping functional bits through everyone's throat, just a real extension to java.
Euhm ... have you ever seen a human walk right after birth ?
Humans *learn* to walk. In about 2 years.
Birds *lean* to fly. In a few seconds. Their mother carries them to about 100 meters height, and drops them (actual method varies). The first landing generally isn't the softest one ...
(Well that's not actually true ... "most" birds learn to fly, at best)
The bankers simply "helped" too many Americans spend massive amounts of borrowed money they probably couldn't pay back.
What broke the back of the economy was nothing like the banker's salary, or wall street profits ... it was that millions of Americans stopped paying back loans. If Americans simply had never made those loans that they'd never pay back (any intrest-only loan, for example, but that's far from all. Also loaning money to invest in stocks ? That's beyond insane). I mean it isn't rocket science that this was going to fail.
Wall street may have handed many people the opportunity to sell their soul, but it's still people who signed in blood, you know.
There's also an OS kernel written in Java, that doesn't mean it's a good idea or an area where Java excels. You use the runtime argument yet mention boost... in this context libC and libstdc++ are runtimes, or see how far you get without them.
The big difference between C++ libraries and other languages libraries is just that they work without runtime.
And btw : there are *no* java operating systems. At least not the java you know. There are "compiled subset of java" kernels, which is not the same thing at all.
And isn't it ? Sure, it suffers from feature bloat - to say the least. And it suffers from a lack of a coherent structure of libraries and tools - it's nothing like java. But if you want to combine high-level programming with access to low-level features. There are C++ operating system kernels that actually use the boost and/or standard libraries. You could even make the claim that a C++ program, like a C program *is* a kernel, in the sense that it can start meaningfully on bare metal (this requires 2 things for a language : being compiled, and no "runtime" that needs to be started and has all sorts of weird startup dependencies). This means it works with C (but only if you are extremely careful) and C++ (again, you can make a few stupid mistakes, but it can work)
Try doing that with Ruby, Java or PHP.
Well since Nokia's evil ... and Apple's evil ... is it wrong to hope they sue eachother to death ?
Of course that would mean their money goes to lawyers ... or to politicians ... that's bad ...
Nope, still in favor of these 2 killing eachother.
Well, I'll have to admit it requires a somewhat flexible interpretation of what a reactor is. But anything containing both Uranium and a moderator medium (such as water) is technically a nuclear reactor.
So the very early nuclear reactors were water + cadmium + uranium + a source of neutrons. Depending on the quantities of the various elements a small injection of neutron-producing elements would case a sustained temperature rise in the water that slowly dissipated. They never reached critical mass, but that is not necessary to illustrate the basic principle in experiments. There were many such "reactors", long before CP-1, all in Belgium (which had the -at that time- only source of nuclear fuel), and Germany (which, up until a certain point, had research cooperation with Belgium. Later Nazi Germany would find a second fuel source, Joachimsthal). One of the Nazi researchers was Jewish, became a refugee, and continued her research into uranium fission from Sweden, but outside of any academic institution there.
Again, read Feynman's book.
And the fact that there is NOT A SINGLE case of those clouds leading to any medical complaint outside of the immediate surroundings of the plant was ever observed ?
Just for accuracy, it's now more than 30 years after Chernobyl. Not one single case. Not one. I mean you would expect one kid to have been particularly unlucky, drinking just the wrong milk where the wind concentrated the wrong cloud ... but no. Not a single
(There there also was uranium and plutonium contamination, combined with the fact that the socialists of the soviet union did not see fit to inform their citizins until it was *far* too late (we're talking weeks), nor did the socialists see fit to inform the workers they sent straight into high-level radiation of what exactly was happening (most didn't even know it was a nuclear reactor, much less that it was releasing thousands-of-degrees hot radioactive gases, containing *tons* of neutron-active isotopes. Go near those, and you're dead. Even then, very few actually died). The Japanese government has been, if anything, much too fast with evacuations, and much more careful with worker's lives than even Western countries have historically been)
(and that's ignoring the fact that the first nuclear reactor was a bathtub somewhere in Belgium which, obviously, was somewhat less-than-safe. The guy actually washed himself in it afterwards. Before you ask, he survived perfectly well. Other idiocies like telling people to wash their hands in the primary cooling water of a nuclear reactor also happened in the US. Again, very little ill effects were observed. You should read Richard Feynman's book for a good laugh.)
I wonder how this squares with the GPL. I mean, the GPL clearly specifies Redhat has to release the source
1) in machine-readable form
2) "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."
It seems to me it would certainly be a reasonable demand to state the second implies "the source" is the internal Redhat git reposity ... That certainly is redhat's preferred way of modifying it.
Yeah they conveniently forget that this was never the problem at Chernobyl. Both Iodine and Cesium are only dangerous if you ingest significant quantities of them. Additionally they have halflives measured in hours ... Meaning these clouds are completely harmless after half a day passes.
The problem at Chernobyl was release of Uranium and Plutonium in clouds, which then spread around the site, and irradiated everything. They will keep irradiating everything for eons. Soviets managed to vaporize about 3.5% of the reactor fuel (and Uranium does NOT vaporize easily, we're talking thousands of degrees). And made it so freaking hot it could stay afloat for minutes.
Does it really need to be said that the Japanese lost control of exactly 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000% of their nuclear fuel. Wanna bet the author of this story is a "green scientist" ?
The thing is, you need to put things in perspective. Even with the radioactive clouds released, background radiation levels at Fukushima, just outside the reactor building are lower than the natural level of radiation in Ramsar, in Iran (which has a particularly high natural level, it has nothing to do with whatever is currently happening there, it's probably been that way for longer than humans exist). Spending a year close to Fukushima itself will have ZERO observable health effects.
Get some perspective (see left upper corner for the increase in background radiation)
I guess we're seeing populist politicians implement their usual strategy : lie. Sorry, ... "Fake but accurate" is the term, right ?
Yeah too bad it all pales compared to what MSNBC is doing to the fukushima "disaster". Man ... talk about "politics first, facts be damned !" reporting. I mean, Fox on fukushima is the most sane treatment of it in all of the US, with a huge margin.
Just to be clear
Now I'm sure that all of "liberal" America would be very glad indeed if -please- a few thousand more Japanese would die from uranium poisoning. *Pretty please*. Or, at least, that's the impression you get from just about every news outlet in the US.
And the net effect will be a whole lot of fear mongering resulting from a few pranksters who'll probably think that's funny as hell.
Like before
I *love* the way you worded that. You know, when Marx's manifesto clearly states that all dissidents are to be violently silenced. But of course, technically, he doesn't specify the exact method. So the "correct" answer to your question is
"there is no method specified for suppressing dissidents" with the additional remark, of course "it only stated that they absolutely need to be suppressed violently - because no other method will work"
Technically the text doesn't even mention dissidents. But everyone who doesn't agree with the exact ideology is considered to be either "bourgoisie" or "deluded by the bourgoisie", both groups are to be violently eliminated or controlled by what amounts to terror.
As I said, VERY nicely worded, your claiming that Marxism does not imply killing dissidents.
Ah the irony here will be the dozens of slashdotters who claim that this has nothing to do with socialism, or communism (in China the state does not even allow one to make the difference).
Let's do that ... and look to North Korea and China if we're not entirely clear on some details, they do this. So do nations like Venezuela, Libya or Iran (they just have a slightly different view of what "basic rights" are). I know it's a cliche, but can you answer this guy's question ?.
And I've worked for 2 research institutions that only produce patents and consultancy. And prototypes, if you could even call them that. More like "technology demos", demonstrating some principle works, but usually far from usable (like a phone with a much more efficient antenna, but not including an actual battery). Consultancy in actual product design that is.
For a *LOT* of industries (including cell phone design) this way of working is quite common. Without patents it wouldn't work.
This allows for the companies to be much smaller : a handset designer (/chip designer/robot designer/...) does not need to keep a lot of research staff on hand, and can thus be a much smaller company. And the companies employing the actual research staff have a steady source of income allowing them to exist in the first place.
Yes, patent trolls exist. That does not mean they're the majority of the industry, or indeed that there are more than 2 or 3 of them at all. Imho we would do well to improve the patent system, excluding patent trolls, NOT affecting actual research and design companies.
You must realize that microsoft can just undercut all of them, if it could simply steal their designs. Given 10 billion dollars, all the hard work done by HTC, or apple free to copy without repricussions.
It is generally assumed that for any handset, for example, 30-40% of the price is research and development (and for the components making that 60%, it is at least 20%). What if microsoft brought out an android knockoff with office connectivity, all the specs of the iPhone 4, and for $300.
How long would something like HTC hold out if it could only produce handsets that have double the price of the competition for similar specs ? Do tell.
How do you even know the situation will improve with your changes (no patents/copyright/trademark...) in place ?
Because frankly, if you don't have either actual, real data (experiments of this kind are plentiful, especially historically speaking. They seem to clearly indicate that without patents, big companies would have a much stronger hold on everything. Without patent/copyright/trademark protection, availability of capital is the only thing that matters, the little guy always loses, because any big company would just undercut them through superior investment). Without a decent, logical argument with actual hard data indicating the situation has changed. I would question who is intelligent and who is a moron ... And please don't use any arguments that boil down to "everyone knows this, how dare you doubt it !", because, again, it would simply prove who the moron is.
It seems to me rather obvious that companies like apple/microsoft/google/... would *love* all these protections dropped. After all, they can rely perfectly well on technological measures (microsoft would simply become a lot more draconian, controlling hardware and software, like apple). But small companies and/or small developers wouldn't be able to do that. Not now, not ever. And they wouldn't have to pay anyone else for their work either. Microsoft could instantly build a catalog of applications that far outstrips anything apple has got, and much higher quality. And they could sell delivery of these applications, without having to pay the authors ... They would do very well indeed, and everyone else would be thoroughly fucked.
Even with just patent protection dropped, the apples and googles of this world easily have the resources needed for reverse engineering large pieces of software. No small software company would be able to keep them out. The reverse, through shear manpower, would not be true at all. The end result being that large companies would write superior software, and would be the only ones able to make a profit out of them.
Btw : feel free to attack me personally, of course, but I really don't know about this issue. Sure copyright and patent nullification sounds nice, but so does free looting ... In my humble opinion your problem probably can't be solved because it's based on a lie. 99% sure. But please, change my mind about this.
First, the "genocide" links don't actually talk about genocide. Two discuss alleged rape by UN peacekeepers, which has already been acknowledged as a problem by the UN, which primarily is the result of countries themselves picking which soldiers serve the UN missions. The Democratic Republic of Congo wants to torment its own people, so it sends its worst soldiers to the UN-controlled areas. That's hardly the result of any incompetence within the UN.
First, the links DO talk about soldiers firing into crowds, killing off entire villages, ...
But my main point is simple :
The chain of command is responsible for the actions of the soldiers - obviously. Why does the UN get a free pass from all warcrimes precedents from you (ie. any soldier not directly AWOL, any action comitted by said soldier - even if it's a breach of discipline - is the fault of the chain of command). Nobody claims with a straight face that, Aushwitz was the result of individual soldier's actions, even though there never were direct orders for most (almost all, in fact) atrocities. Yet in the case of the UN, you consider them innocent for exactly this reason.
I might -perhaps- be convinced that there is shared responsability. Like 50% Morocco - 50% UN (and 50% nepal - 50% un, and 50% france 50% UN, and so on). But the UN obviously doesn't get a free pass on controlling their own soldiers.
Absolutely! Before the UN or anybody else intervenes, there should be some clear sign that Absolutely!
Given that the UN has publicly comitted more genocides than any other organization in history, I'd advocate violently keeping UN bastards out of everything.
Also, it's the same organization as the "League of nations". It's not often said exactly which organization put Germany in such a position that almost the entire population supported Hitler, but that organization would be the League of nations. Also the League of nations was the organization caused Poland's military to demobilize DURING Hitler's attack, "to allow for peace".
These organizations do not have anything at heart except the delusions of the politicians leading them (first amongst those delusions : that any UN politician, even low-level, should have a wage that Goldman Sach's CEO would be ashamed of)
People should be defended from UN intervention. Because, frankly, if the Libyans knew what they're getting into, they'd put Qadhafi back and give him a raise. Voluntarily. Because it's a lot better than the alternative.
Let's just review :
IAEA - Because pakistan doesn't yet have hydrogen bombs. Oh and pakistan won't help Iran (the one smart decision in a forest of lunatic, delusional decisions that border on warcrimes), so someone else will have to give them the bomb. ...
IMF - Because the UN does not yet control the money of every state
UNRWA - Because, let's face it, palestinians might finish what hitler started, wouldn't that be great
UNICEF - Giving money to dictators, but ONLY if they torture children
WIPO - You thought the DMCA was bad ? Enter this in google
UNAIDS - because blacks, frankly, deserve to die (and because agents of this agency themselves are the source of the disease in several provinces)
UN security council - Securing your oil supply -and our politician's superiority feelings- through human rights violations, rape, and genocide. Worldwide
UNESCO - Talibanizing your cultural heritage (you'd think an organization like would actually have restored or maintained even a single monument, right ?)
ILO - Ensuring adequate supplies of young girls to clean politician's houses at a wage low enough to ensure they're open to making something on the side (I know an ILO politician. Sadly. He likes to have a young girl as a cleaning lady, one that's illegal in the country, and yells at her publicly. So does his wife. To the point that his family defends the cleaner physically from him. He's working on the "child labour" issue, now for 20 years). He claims this is nothing strange. He may be right.
-oh and-
UN inspections didn't find ANY chemical weapons. Only dead bodies killed with sarin gas. That *obviously* means Iraq never had any chemical weapons. Too bad Saddam can't teach us how to fire non-existent weapons at our enemies. Let's face it, we could halve our military budget with that trick
People should be protected from the atrocity that is the UN. Why anyone even associates with these assholes is beyond me.
On the plus side, if a tsunami occurs, it results in an instant free upgrade of your regular car to a flying model.
Also your house will be upgraded to floating parts-of-a-house.
You don't seem to get the obvious. The purpose of most political parties is not to solve problems, it is to create them. But once one lets go of realism, like the greens have done so long ago, there are 2 types of policy one might pursue :
a) you can try to genuinly solve problems with effective solutions
But best hope you never actually solve problems, or else hope that there always will be new problems. Working yourself into these new problems is also a big job, and you'll never work with the same people for long.
b) try to solve imagined problems with well-sounding but counterproductive "solutions"
Now you have a single problem that you can focus on your entire career. The problem will grow, of course, every time you book the slightest little bit of success, and as a result the need for solutions will become ever greater. And you can always point to your own long experience in "getting policy passed" in relation to the problem.
Now, given that you're a leftist politician, not all that young, and you couldn't care less about technology. Only power is of intrest (otherwise you shouldn't -and wouldn't- be a politician). Which one do you choose ?
Perhaps this applies somewhat less to "entrenched" political parties. The ones who know they'll have power, regardless of actual problems. But the younger a political party, the more it depends on creating problems for everyone else.
Can you be sure a nuclear plant will always be operated safely? What if a bunch of incompetent. thieving, corrupt cronies are put in charge?
And if that happens to a coal plant, they could produce co clouds and let them float freely. Anyone near such a cloud will die in minutes, and they won't dissipate anywhere near as fast as these radiation clouds. The same could be done by an engineer with any fossil fuel plant.
And if that happens to an oil plant, can you say "oil tsunami" ? Just pump the whole oil supply into the sea or a lake or just into the street.
And if that happens to a gas plant, have you ever seen a big natural gas explosion ? Or they could pretty much set anything, even big things, alight.
And if that happens to ...
Sorry to go with a cliche, but "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Your security measures should be directed against the terrorists, not against their victims (ie. power plants, airplanes, and general the people using and living near them). And frankly, we all know how one could eliminate 99+% of all terrorism. It's just not very PC.